Template talk:Zerg Breeds
Organization Can't really comment on the intentions of the template's original conception, but I am iffy about certain placings and entries on it. Obviously subjectivity plays a role, but a few pointers: -Strains such as the behemoth and leviathan don't belong in "rare strains" or "specialized strains" as they don't strictly meet either criteria. They have never been explicitly stated to be rare and the specialized strain entry is, as I see it, for strains that are nothing more than souped up incarnations of core strains, such as the Hunter Killer. Arguably the likes of the guardian and lurker could go there, but they differ drastically in physical form. The behemoth and co. on the other hand, are not variants. If they are called specialized or rare for the sole distinction of never appearing in the games, then you could call every protoss and terran vehicle/starship that doesn't appear "rare" as well. -Infested terran variants are, for the most part, game distinctions. As this is an in-universe template and not a game one, that should be reflected. While infested marines are perhaps smarter than their GW/BW predecessors, the difference is minor and there's no in-universe distinction. The only real in-universe IT variants, as far as I can see, are the centaur and mutate, due to drastic physical difference and actual sapience respectively. Arguably the likes of Kerrigan and Stewart could form a category of their own, but they more or less belong in the command strains section.--Hawki 06:52, May 23, 2010 (UTC) While perhaps the behemoth isn't rare, breeds that have never been seen in lore (eg bone wasp, dracolisk, etc) should definitely be counted as "rare". Canceled breeds that didn't appear in StarCraft I (eg swarm guardian) should also be counted as rare. The brutalisk is obviously a rare, experimental breed like the Torrasque; it was once the source of unique upgrades for Raynor's Raiders. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:08, May 23, 2010 (UTC) I've moved the likes of the canceled units and structures to a misc. section, as "rare" carries an implication that isn't backed up and they don't really meet the designation of specialist. Not sure about the brutalisk though, as it seems to be a unique strain, but I'm willing to let it be in the specialized section for now.--Hawki 13:20, May 23, 2010 (UTC) No biological differences in game variants I think there's a big difference between an explosive infested terran (SC1) and a colonist (claws) or "marine" (SC2 version). There might not be a difference between the Ghost and SC II marine versions though, but then, the Ghost version wasn't included in the template. Also, why erase the pygalisk? Those things are cute! PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:15, August 15, 2010 (UTC) I don't think the ability to explode is much of a change in biology-going by Ghost, ITs can still do that, it just isn't represented in game mechanics. And biology, infested scientists and SCV pilots are no different. Removing pygalisks was a mistake however.--Hawki 07:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC) Why wouldn't infested terrans explode if they hadn't lost the ability? Stuff that happened in Ghost is virtually non-canon now, since the game was canned. They were created in a different way in StarCraft II as well, and we're specifically told the new strain is more "virulent". They're not the same thing. You can't expect Kerrigan not to upgrade the recipe in four years. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:58, August 30, 2010 (UTC) While there may be some difference, the game pages don't provide any info on it. Any changes are/should be covered in the core IT page. Having links to game units essentially defeats the nature of the template.--Hawki 07:49, September 9, 2010 (UTC) They do now. The infested terran page has been substantially updated and the types renamed to something more descriptive. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 21:16, September 11, 2010 (UTC) Template use For terrans, we have separate lore templates for "occupation" (infantry), vehicles, and aircraft. For uniformity, this template should be discarded and replaced with one template each for ground breeds, air breeds, and structures. The protoss should receive a similar treatment, and the terrans need a structure template to fill out the scheme. - Meco (talk, ) 07:29, October 31, 2010 (UTC) I can understand the uniformity aspect, but the thing about the zerg is just that-they're zerg. Terran vehicles and infantry for instance, effectively belong to different aspects (e.g. Navy, Marines, civilian, etc.). For the zerg, there's not really any distinction, just a hemogenous swarm of strains. I think the template reflects that as it stands.--Hawki 08:10, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Edit: Another thing to consider is the command strains. They wouldn't fit with ground or aerospace templates, yet aren't numerous or divided enough to warrant a template of their own.--Hawki 08:30, October 31, 2010 (UTC) It was my impression the terrans machines were split specifically to reflect their different areas of operation; flying machines, ground vehicle machines, stationary machines (not yet made). We already have a way with dealing with functions, like "transports": they get a subdivision within the template. - Meco (talk, ) 08:53, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Except command strains aren't really sub-divisions. And there's also the issue of zerg structures-there's so few 'special' structures that another template would effectively be a copy of a game one.--Hawki 09:32, October 31, 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with Hawki on this one. The distinction between zerg air and ground is too arcane for this template. For instance, broodlings now fly (behind the brood lord) until thrown, when they become land units... To be technical, even the Overmind could fly (when it was bodiless, before it crashed into Aiur). Terran machines were split into areas of operation, but also because they're machines. By definition, anything terran that can fly is a machine. It's very different with the zerg. Incidentally, "miscellaneous" strains like the bone wasp that have absolutely no lore support shouldn't be in this template. They're already part of the canceled unit template. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:35, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Heh, get support, but have to still poke it in the eye about the misc. strains. They haven't appeared in-game or anything, but there's nothing to indicate that they don't exist-same canon principle of keeping beta and Ghost info. The misc. categorization serves its purpose as it's difficult to tell where the strains would fit in the heirarchy of the previously seen ones.--Hawki 18:33, October 31, 2010 (UTC) On the Origin of Species Yes, I'm being a smartass with the title, but I feel that with recent edits to the page, something needs to be discussed lest this become an edit war. Much as I disagree with removing misc breeds from the template outright (especially with the swarm guardian and The Lost Viking), I feel that a few foundations need to be laid/discussed, in light of recent edits. *Command Strains: There's a clear hierarchy established within lore, mainly the original manual. The only iffiness is where Kerrigan and the metamorph fit in. I'd say Kerrigan is below Overmind, as it did establish chain of command over her, however superficially. Metamorph I'd say goes above them all, in that it controls its own evolution, which is more than any other command strain did (Kerrigan created by Overmind, Overmind created by xel'naga, etc.). Also note that the queen article links to its disambig page here, as both queens are/were command strains. Brood mothers get an extra entry here due to being specifically designed for command. *Core Strains: Lack of appearence in games is by no way indicative of "special status" (outright laughed by the idea of feederlings being a "special" strain). Behemoths and leviathans have appeared en masse before. We know behemoths are an assimilated species just the same as any other. The entire point of the template is to effectively showcase zerg biology, while leaving the game templates to show what units stand as producable, and what are special units. Special units don't equal special strains. Even the brutalisk. It's only appeared by itself so far, but there's no identifiable core strain that's been mentioned, and it's already gone into variant strain territory with the hunterling. We can't break the template's standards just because of a lack of appearences in-game. And for that matter, I've put the overseer with the variant strains. Yes, it's a core game unit in a sense, but referred to directly as a "genetically modified overlord"...well, what about the other overlord variants? Gamewise, different. Biologically, just another stem off the main overlord branch.--Hawki 23:21, August 25, 2011 (UTC) Separate Template/Category? I've been wondering about this, but I've been beaten to the punch. Basically, I was thinking that all primal zerg units should be given their own breeds template and sub-catagory. Reasons are: *The primal zerg operate very differently from Swarm zerg. *Certain primal zerg strains are without Swarm zerg counterparts (e.g. the ravasaur), so they can't be grouped under "core strains" or "specialized strains." *The primal zerg have distinct forms before Kerrigan arrives on Zerus (see cinematic). *Swarm zerg have Dehaka's pack with them, but can't reproduce them similarly. Primal zerg under Kerrigan seem to be finite in no., and each is an individual. Basically, think they should have their own template - "command strains" would be Zurvan and the pack leaders, have separate ground and air lines in the template, and there's even a few structures (the primal hive and primal spawning pool IIRC)--Hawki (talk) 09:41, May 27, 2013 (UTC) :Were you thinking of making that a template "within" this one (separately collapsible), or entirely separate? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:11, May 27, 2013 (UTC) ::Entirely separate. While I think primal zerg units should go on the StarCraft II zerg template (similar to the terran campaign units of WoL) in some form, in terms of breeds and the like, the template should be different - in-universe difference, thus, different template, and all that.--Hawki (talk) 14:04, May 27, 2013 (UTC)